Comments on: Case Builds Against Plant Washington in Georgiahttp://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/11/12/case-builds-against-plant-washington-in-georgia/
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 15:53:42 +0000hourly1http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1By: Tom Barksdalehttp://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/11/12/case-builds-against-plant-washington-in-georgia/comment-page-1/#comment-192
Tom BarksdaleThu, 19 Nov 2009 19:26:52 +0000http://blog.cleanenergy.org/?p=2917#comment-192I, too, was at the October 20 meeting in Sandersville and want to reinforce other writers who pointed out that opponents of the plant outnumbered supporters. Of the 65 citizens who gave formal testimony, 14 were for and 51 against.
The idea that this plant will be virtually pollution-free is palpably false. Whatever the sophistication of its technology, it would be a net polluter. It would emit more mercury, more sulfur dioxide, more carbon dioxide, more mercury, and more health-threatening particulate matter.
But the central point about Plant Washington is not a matter of relative numbers. There are two compelling points that argue against building this plant. No. 1, it is not needed. As the perfectly legitimate and sound GA Tech study concludes, growing electricity demand could be met by greater efficiency alone. Alternative energy sources like solar, wind, and even some forms of biomass would simply be a bonus.
No. 2, all the evidence points to Plant Washington being a huge, economically unfeasible white elephant. The four EMCs that withdrew reached that conclusion, and I have not seen single comment--much less comprehensive study--issued by any supporters that rebut that conclusion. All we get is rah, rah cheerleading by the likes of Dean Alford and others who have an economic stake in the plant. Earlier this year, Dynegy Corporation withdrew from building another coal plant in southwest Georgia on the same grounds of lack of economic viability. The CEO of Georgia Power publicly stated he did not want a permit to build a coal-fired power plant in Georgia.
What an overwhelming vote of no confidence by real energy experts, as opposed to the booster club who apparently believe that chanting will create jobs.I, too, was at the October 20 meeting in Sandersville and want to reinforce other writers who pointed out that opponents of the plant outnumbered supporters. Of the 65 citizens who gave formal testimony, 14 were for and 51 against.

The idea that this plant will be virtually pollution-free is palpably false. Whatever the sophistication of its technology, it would be a net polluter. It would emit more mercury, more sulfur dioxide, more carbon dioxide, more mercury, and more health-threatening particulate matter.

But the central point about Plant Washington is not a matter of relative numbers. There are two compelling points that argue against building this plant. No. 1, it is not needed. As the perfectly legitimate and sound GA Tech study concludes, growing electricity demand could be met by greater efficiency alone. Alternative energy sources like solar, wind, and even some forms of biomass would simply be a bonus.

No. 2, all the evidence points to Plant Washington being a huge, economically unfeasible white elephant. The four EMCs that withdrew reached that conclusion, and I have not seen single comment–much less comprehensive study–issued by any supporters that rebut that conclusion. All we get is rah, rah cheerleading by the likes of Dean Alford and others who have an economic stake in the plant. Earlier this year, Dynegy Corporation withdrew from building another coal plant in southwest Georgia on the same grounds of lack of economic viability. The CEO of Georgia Power publicly stated he did not want a permit to build a coal-fired power plant in Georgia.

What an overwhelming vote of no confidence by real energy experts, as opposed to the booster club who apparently believe that chanting will create jobs.

]]>By: Harthttp://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/11/12/case-builds-against-plant-washington-in-georgia/comment-page-1/#comment-188
HartFri, 13 Nov 2009 21:21:18 +0000http://blog.cleanenergy.org/?p=2917#comment-188I am reluctant to respond to "local supporter's'” diatribe, because it is pointless to argue with someone who is so at home with bad-faith fallacies and falsehoods. I do so only to defeat his contemptible attempt to red-bait me and the anti-coal movement He claims that I am "a known author of Marxist propaganda and books." In fact I have only one book, not "books". It was my PhD thesis, written thirty-five years ago. It was a scholarly work in political philosophy, about Regis Debray, a young French Marxist philosopher and (later) prize-winning novelist. If that makes me a Marxist, then I am glad that I did not write a book about Adolf Hitler or Count Dracula. As for " propaganda", I think that describes "local supporter's" screed nicely. Let's take the falsehooods first: at the two Sandersville meetings that I was able to attend, opponents of the plant who presented comments outnumered supporters by a factor of between three or four to one. If our "local supporter" really is local, then he knows that it is not the case that "supporters almost equaled the number opposed" or that "the opposition isn’t growing at all" . The rest is pure ad hominen and appeal to false authority (his). Opposition presenters are simply dismissed as "uninformed" and "misleading" and the Georgia Tech study is a “ one sided effort by the authors and probably ginned up by this very group.” His complaint that the study, a review of 19 studies by state and federal agencies, is not “peer reviewed” and “formally endorsed by the University” is as absurd as if I were to dismiss his revered EPD permit documents because they are not peer reviewed and endorsed by the Governor’s office.I am reluctant to respond to “local supporter’s'” diatribe, because it is pointless to argue with someone who is so at home with bad-faith fallacies and falsehoods. I do so only to defeat his contemptible attempt to red-bait me and the anti-coal movement He claims that I am “a known author of Marxist propaganda and books.” In fact I have only one book, not “books”. It was my PhD thesis, written thirty-five years ago. It was a scholarly work in political philosophy, about Regis Debray, a young French Marxist philosopher and (later) prize-winning novelist. If that makes me a Marxist, then I am glad that I did not write a book about Adolf Hitler or Count Dracula. As for ” propaganda”, I think that describes “local supporter’s” screed nicely. Let’s take the falsehooods first: at the two Sandersville meetings that I was able to attend, opponents of the plant who presented comments outnumered supporters by a factor of between three or four to one. If our “local supporter” really is local, then he knows that it is not the case that “supporters almost equaled the number opposed” or that “the opposition isn’t growing at all” . The rest is pure ad hominen and appeal to false authority (his). Opposition presenters are simply dismissed as “uninformed” and “misleading” and the Georgia Tech study is a “ one sided effort by the authors and probably ginned up by this very group.” His complaint that the study, a review of 19 studies by state and federal agencies, is not “peer reviewed” and “formally endorsed by the University” is as absurd as if I were to dismiss his revered EPD permit documents because they are not peer reviewed and endorsed by the Governor’s office.
]]>By: Cathyhttp://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/11/12/case-builds-against-plant-washington-in-georgia/comment-page-1/#comment-187
CathyFri, 13 Nov 2009 17:38:50 +0000http://blog.cleanenergy.org/?p=2917#comment-187As one of the same "old" people referred to by "local supporter", I do continually ask the same "old" questions because I have not been able to get satisfactory answers as to how I can safely live with a coal-fired power plant in my community. If I could get these answers, I might stop asking the questions. As to someone referring to an ash "pond", please consider that for people not used to speaking in front of large groups, referring to an ash pile or ash pit as a "pond" might be an inadvertent error - although if they keep having to "wet" the ash to keep it from becoming airborne, it may well become a "pond". (I really don't understand how a pile or a pit is that much safer than a pond though.)
As to our being uninformed, I can honestly say that I have researched extensively the issues involved in the plant and have read the applications for the permits (every word) as well as the permits themselves - has "local supporter" done the same? The facts that cause me concern are the facts stated in the plant application.As one of the same “old” people referred to by “local supporter”, I do continually ask the same “old” questions because I have not been able to get satisfactory answers as to how I can safely live with a coal-fired power plant in my community. If I could get these answers, I might stop asking the questions. As to someone referring to an ash “pond”, please consider that for people not used to speaking in front of large groups, referring to an ash pile or ash pit as a “pond” might be an inadvertent error – although if they keep having to “wet” the ash to keep it from becoming airborne, it may well become a “pond”. (I really don’t understand how a pile or a pit is that much safer than a pond though.)
As to our being uninformed, I can honestly say that I have researched extensively the issues involved in the plant and have read the applications for the permits (every word) as well as the permits themselves – has “local supporter” done the same? The facts that cause me concern are the facts stated in the plant application.
]]>By: Katherinehttp://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/11/12/case-builds-against-plant-washington-in-georgia/comment-page-1/#comment-186
KatherineFri, 13 Nov 2009 17:09:56 +0000http://blog.cleanenergy.org/?p=2917#comment-186Local supporter fails to understand that the "public meetings" were organized by plant opponents because the state refused to accommodate over 1,000 requests for multiple hearings. These additional meetings were open to the public and supporters were there, and treated with respect for their opinions.
In particular, the issue of wells going dry is of very real concern. The increased demand for water will serve as a real threat to local wells, as was demonstrated by a USGS geologist in a public presentation. For those who only have well water for their homes, we are rightly concerned about increase use a coal fired plant would require, and in fact would be irresponsible if we didn't express those concerns.
As for Hart's political views, asking that the co-op of which he is a member (and therefore a stock holder) abide by reasonable governing laws and rules so that its members may participate, is hardly Marxist in approach. In fact, it may be one of the best examples of capitalism, with the co-op members participating as responsible investors for the best outcome.Local supporter fails to understand that the “public meetings” were organized by plant opponents because the state refused to accommodate over 1,000 requests for multiple hearings. These additional meetings were open to the public and supporters were there, and treated with respect for their opinions.

In particular, the issue of wells going dry is of very real concern. The increased demand for water will serve as a real threat to local wells, as was demonstrated by a USGS geologist in a public presentation. For those who only have well water for their homes, we are rightly concerned about increase use a coal fired plant would require, and in fact would be irresponsible if we didn’t express those concerns.

As for Hart’s political views, asking that the co-op of which he is a member (and therefore a stock holder) abide by reasonable governing laws and rules so that its members may participate, is hardly Marxist in approach. In fact, it may be one of the best examples of capitalism, with the co-op members participating as responsible investors for the best outcome.

]]>By: Toddhttp://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/11/12/case-builds-against-plant-washington-in-georgia/comment-page-1/#comment-185
ToddFri, 13 Nov 2009 16:27:49 +0000http://blog.cleanenergy.org/?p=2917#comment-185The FACT is there is a scientific consensus that the earth is currently experiencing global warming do to human green house gas contributions.
The FACT is coal fired power plants are the largest single source emitters of green house gas emissions.
The FACT is that the Southern United States, if counted as its own country, would be the 8th largest contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions.
The FACT is: Our children's future depends on our generation being bold, looking beyond quarterly profit margins, and acting now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by primarily investing in energy efficiency, and then into real, carbon reducing renewables, and lastly into biofuels and traditional production capacities.
---
Ya'll messaging needs to change from: "look what these experts say we can do" to "look what these local folks need us to do, look at what the global community needs us to do, look at what our grandchildren need us to do".
---
On a seperate issue, to say that mercury is not a bio-accumulant and that additional emission sources won't increase current levels is an absurdity and a blatant disregard for even an 8th grade understanding of biology and chemistry.
---The FACT is there is a scientific consensus that the earth is currently experiencing global warming do to human green house gas contributions.

The FACT is coal fired power plants are the largest single source emitters of green house gas emissions.

The FACT is that the Southern United States, if counted as its own country, would be the 8th largest contributor to global greenhouse gas emissions.

The FACT is: Our children’s future depends on our generation being bold, looking beyond quarterly profit margins, and acting now to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by primarily investing in energy efficiency, and then into real, carbon reducing renewables, and lastly into biofuels and traditional production capacities.

—

Ya’ll messaging needs to change from: “look what these experts say we can do” to “look what these local folks need us to do, look at what the global community needs us to do, look at what our grandchildren need us to do”.

—

On a seperate issue, to say that mercury is not a bio-accumulant and that additional emission sources won’t increase current levels is an absurdity and a blatant disregard for even an 8th grade understanding of biology and chemistry.

—

]]>By: Frank Talkhttp://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/11/12/case-builds-against-plant-washington-in-georgia/comment-page-1/#comment-184
Frank TalkFri, 13 Nov 2009 16:13:17 +0000http://blog.cleanenergy.org/?p=2917#comment-184You quote selectively from the GT study on energy efficiency -- and consistently fail to note that the energy efficiency gains in that study are only estimated to meet demand until 2020. After that, guess what? We will need to build more power plants. Even Marilyn Brown, the report's author, said in the AP story about the report: "We are not saying new plants are not needed..." See, I can quote selectively too.
Also, I've reviewed Dean Alfrod's op-ed in the Savannah Morning News -- the one you say contains misinformation -- and did not see any misinformation in it. I saw facts -- which I know you would rather not deal with. By calling into questions the integrity of the facts, it is YOU who are spreading misinformation.You quote selectively from the GT study on energy efficiency — and consistently fail to note that the energy efficiency gains in that study are only estimated to meet demand until 2020. After that, guess what? We will need to build more power plants. Even Marilyn Brown, the report’s author, said in the AP story about the report: “We are not saying new plants are not needed…” See, I can quote selectively too.

Also, I’ve reviewed Dean Alfrod’s op-ed in the Savannah Morning News — the one you say contains misinformation — and did not see any misinformation in it. I saw facts — which I know you would rather not deal with. By calling into questions the integrity of the facts, it is YOU who are spreading misinformation.

]]>By: adminhttp://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/11/12/case-builds-against-plant-washington-in-georgia/comment-page-1/#comment-183
adminFri, 13 Nov 2009 15:30:53 +0000http://blog.cleanenergy.org/?p=2917#comment-183For those questioning the safety (and even existence) of coal ash from coal plants, we invite you to re-review our earlier blogpost from this year featuring the massive TVA coal ash disaster in Kingston, TN and the federal inquiries into the toxic mess: http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/06/12/sen-boxer-public-should-be-notified-about-high-hazard-coal-ash-sites/
Also, for a brand new report from the Physicians for Social Responsibility called "Coal's Assault on Human Health" please go to: <a href="http://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.psr.org/resources/coals-assault-on-human-health.html</a> If you don't believe us, maybe you'll believe the doctors.For those questioning the safety (and even existence) of coal ash from coal plants, we invite you to re-review our earlier blogpost from this year featuring the massive TVA coal ash disaster in Kingston, TN and the federal inquiries into the toxic mess: http://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/06/12/sen-boxer-public-should-be-notified-about-high-hazard-coal-ash-sites/

]]>By: dmachttp://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/11/12/case-builds-against-plant-washington-in-georgia/comment-page-1/#comment-182
dmacFri, 13 Nov 2009 11:49:44 +0000http://blog.cleanenergy.org/?p=2917#comment-182The comment by "Local supporter" is incorrect regarding the growing opposition to the Washington County coal plant. Here are some of the comments from the public hearing.
http://www.georgiansforsmartenergy.org/uploads/georgiansforsmartenergyorg/Comments_-_EPD_Hearing_-_102009FINAL.pdf
The majority of the people who came to this meeting did not travel long distances to attend. These were mostly locals. Also of note is that one of these locals (from Dublin) was a Democratic contender for Governor. I was so encouraged by his stance that I made a $25 contribution to his campaign!
I monitor the newspapers (online) for news on this matter and am heartened to see many letters to the editor from local residents who oppose this coal plant.
On an unrelated note: Governor Perdue nominated a new EPD director. The DNR rubber stamped his choice. As such a lawyer with ties to this coal plant's potential owners will be in charge of protecting our environment. Perdue took a page right out of the Bush playbook on how to keep large corporate donors happy.The comment by “Local supporter” is incorrect regarding the growing opposition to the Washington County coal plant. Here are some of the comments from the public hearing.http://www.georgiansforsmartenergy.org/uploads/georgiansforsmartenergyorg/Comments_-_EPD_Hearing_-_102009FINAL.pdf

The majority of the people who came to this meeting did not travel long distances to attend. These were mostly locals. Also of note is that one of these locals (from Dublin) was a Democratic contender for Governor. I was so encouraged by his stance that I made a $25 contribution to his campaign!

I monitor the newspapers (online) for news on this matter and am heartened to see many letters to the editor from local residents who oppose this coal plant.

On an unrelated note: Governor Perdue nominated a new EPD director. The DNR rubber stamped his choice. As such a lawyer with ties to this coal plant’s potential owners will be in charge of protecting our environment. Perdue took a page right out of the Bush playbook on how to keep large corporate donors happy.

]]>By: Local supporterhttp://blog.cleanenergy.org/2009/11/12/case-builds-against-plant-washington-in-georgia/comment-page-1/#comment-181
Local supporterThu, 12 Nov 2009 20:49:12 +0000http://blog.cleanenergy.org/?p=2917#comment-181Actually the opposition isn’t growing at all because it’s the same old people saying the same old tired, uninformed and misleading information about mountain top mining coal being used, about the plant having coal ash ponds, overall statewide increases of mercury levels, wells going dry, etc. The aforementioned is all completely false – per the state EPD, their comments at public meetings and permit filings. And about misinformation this site claims… Read the above again, as this is the pot calling the kettle black. Too bad they aren’t held to the same factual standards.
What this garbage also fails to mention is that dozens of supporters also attended the “public meetings” around the state. At those meetings, supporters almost equaled the number opposed. Again, more misleading and inaccurate reporting by the self-anointed “honest ones.”
The Ga. Tech study is a review of other studies throughout the southeast and was not formally endorsed by the University. Furthermore, it was NOT academically peer reviewed and was nothing more than a biased, one sided effort by the authors and probably ginned up by this very group. Hardly objective data.
I also like the picture of Hartmut Ramm, a known author of Marxist propaganda and books. He adds real credibility to your cause. NOT.Actually the opposition isn’t growing at all because it’s the same old people saying the same old tired, uninformed and misleading information about mountain top mining coal being used, about the plant having coal ash ponds, overall statewide increases of mercury levels, wells going dry, etc. The aforementioned is all completely false – per the state EPD, their comments at public meetings and permit filings. And about misinformation this site claims… Read the above again, as this is the pot calling the kettle black. Too bad they aren’t held to the same factual standards.

What this garbage also fails to mention is that dozens of supporters also attended the “public meetings” around the state. At those meetings, supporters almost equaled the number opposed. Again, more misleading and inaccurate reporting by the self-anointed “honest ones.”

The Ga. Tech study is a review of other studies throughout the southeast and was not formally endorsed by the University. Furthermore, it was NOT academically peer reviewed and was nothing more than a biased, one sided effort by the authors and probably ginned up by this very group. Hardly objective data.

I also like the picture of Hartmut Ramm, a known author of Marxist propaganda and books. He adds real credibility to your cause. NOT.